When someone says the "modern science", it is like a magic
formula. No objections are allowed against "modern science". Interestingly,
there cannot be any other science but modern science. Science that is not modern is not a
science. Non-modern science, non-contemporary science, is something of the past, it is
surpassed, it is not a science any more. Science therefore does not represent a complex of
solid unshakeable knowledge. It is a transient image of the world and of life, in which
that what held true twenty, or fifty, or only five years ago, is often no longer true.
Modern science, as it appears in the school projects, momentarily represents a canon, with
which the world is supposed to be measured. It is a materialistic canon. It however bears
all the signs of a religion.

The Czech revivalists (there was a revivalist movement in the early 18th
century, stressing the independence of the Czech nation and the language, trans. note)
have brought attention to the strong similarity of the Czech language to the Indian
languages, particularly to Sanskrit, which points to the common basis, from which these
Indo-European languages have formed. The Czech word for science - věda - is related to
the Sanskrit word Veda. Vedas have existed for millennia and till the present times have
been canonical and unshakeable bearers of a certain religious conception of the world,
which they protect and sustain. We too have our Veda. Within this modern Veda - věda -
science, certain axioms are being proclaimed, foundation stones of the teaching, which
cannot be disputed without risking excommunication and damnation.

The Body of Materialism

First of all comes the notion of life and therefore of thought at its
summit, as having originally evolved from the matter, through entirely materialistic
processes. Meaning that the whole evolution has moved from below to above, from the lower
material manifestations and lower forms to the highest manifestation of the matter, which
is the thought. From the anthropological point of view, the human thought and life are the
direct result of a whirl of hydrocarbons a few billion years ago. To the contemporary
medical science it is such a whirl even now. This is why a psychiatrist, having diagnosed
a mental defect, would prescribe a medication, which in his opinion would regulate the
material processes in the body (in brain) and thus influence the defective mentality. In
short, because of this axiom, a modern scientist is unswerving in his conviction that the
organism is organised in the same direction as it has originally evolved, from below, from
a lifeless form, towards the more vital form. And in the same direction he tries to
influence the organism. The lifeless form is most important to him, the cause of all
processes. It is the essence. This is why the modern medical science is only interested in
the materialistic side of things. At post-mortems or X-rays, it notes the changes in
organs. Under the microscope it looks for the material cause of disease, which it sees in
viruses and bacteria. It only finds causality in material connections, because it knows of
nothing else. The lower the article of the causal chain that the modern scientist has
detected, the happier he is, because he is convinced that he has come closer to the
fundamental. The whole direction of modern scientific research and naturally of medical
research, is to penetrate down. To the lower and lower organisational levels. Thus in
physics we see the aim to penetrate at any cost to the smallest building blocks of the
matter. To penetrate all the way to what is considered to be the essential, to the cause
of all things, to the tiniest elementary particle. In medical science this is manifested
in the search for the most basic processes within the cell and its core, in the
chromosomes. The smallest articles of the body, the lowest organisational structures, the
least vital, appear to modern scientists to be the basic, the most important, the
fundamental. They think that influencing them through genetic engineering, they can
improve the organisation of the entire body.

Characteristically, to aim towards the lowest and organisationally the
simplest articles, where the hypothetical principle is to be eventually found, the
primeval substance, the cause of all things, the materialistic deity, is a hopeless task.
If in the physics of over fifty years ago this was the atom, now it appears that in the
cyclotrons a fission of any particle is possible, with the use of more and more energy,
apparently to infinity. The atom is no longer an elementary particle. Nowadays modern
scientists know of bosons and gluons and neutrinos, etc. New, smaller and smaller
particles, are being created in the laboratories, nearly every week. There is nothing
fundamental to be found. Many physicists now express the opinion that matter is like a
string, which could be cut into any number of pieces (they could hardly argue against the
homeopathic infinitesimal dilution). The primal cause is probably not here. This sad
announcement, which virtually marks the end of modern science of the nineteenth and
twentieth century, is made by the avant-garde among the modern scientists, whose voices
naturally have not as yet had any repercussion on the school projects.

The Crisis of Materialism

The basic problem of modern physics is also the question of the origin
of the world, which presents an insurmountable paradox to the inquiry - if the essence of
the world is to be found in the lowest particles, what did the world actually originate
from? Where is the cause? Here the modern physicists find their limits, returning once
again to the old proven metaphysics. It is the most advanced physicists, such as Einstein,
Heisenberg and others, who can see that the prime cause may lay above, after all. In
something indescribable, connected with the thought, rather than with an atom or a boson.
Acknowledging statements by leading physicists about Buddhism, God, etc., attest to this.
Does not the theory of the Big Bang fall within the Buddhists opinion that Universes are
being created and become extinct endlessly? The American physicist Fritjof Capra wrote the
book The Tao of Physics, where he maintains that everything discovered by the most modern
physics was predicated by the Chinese and Indian Buddhists thousands of years ago.

Physics is the vanguard of science. Newtonian physics once laid the
foundations to all other sciences. Newtonian physics, with its constant and reliable image
of the world, was displaced by the relativistic physics - and seventy years later the
other branches of science are cautiously beginning to take some notice. However, even the
relativistic physics may now have been displaced or perhaps complemented - in its pinnacle
- with the return to the ancient idealistic belief that the cause of everything does not
lie below, but above.

The same process happens in the medical science, somewhat delayed in
comparison to the physics. Genetic engineering may be finding ways to change the genetic
code, to work with DNK and RNK, but for the practical treatment this has little
significance.

At best this leads only to further suppression of the symptoms, to
further development of chronic diseases and to a break down of the natural defensive
system of the organism, perhaps even of its natural structure. Because the organisational
basis of the entire human body and mind is not situated in the organs, or in the cells,
not even down in the DNK (or even lower?), but opposite at the very top, in the
nonmaterial organisational centre. Should an organ or even DNK be cured, this cure must
come from there, where the DNK is organised and where it has originated.

The revolution in the medical science at the beginning of this century
was brought about by the psychoanalyses, which in its Freudian materialistic conception
has emphasised the importance of the mind, and in the Jungian idealistic conception then
advanced further, revealing the spiritual dimension of man, superior even to the mind.
Psychoanalyses will be dealt with in more detail, it is enough to state here that after a
correctly conducted psychoanalyses a spontaneous cure of physical problems might follow,
which totally confirms the homeopathic principle of treatment: outward from the centre,
from the mind to the physical organs.

Another axiom, the basic pillar of modern science, is the idea that
science supports the technological progress, which then facilitates the improvement in
people's life conditions. It cannot be argued that science facilitates the advancement of
technology. At the end of our technological century however, the more stringent question
arises:

Does Contemporary Technological Progress Support Life?

Above all we must realise that most technological branches have been
developed mainly for military purposes, therefore the killing of people. This concerns
aviation, rocket technology, astronautics, chemistry (let's not forget that the Nobel
Price for scientific achievement comes from the money made from selling explosives), heavy
industry, manufacturing tanks and cannons, electronics (I have heard the opinion that the
collapse of the Soviet Union was caused by its inability to keep the pace in development
of electronic technology for operating the defence system), nuclear industry
(manufacturing nuclear arms). The needs of these primary industries are also conditioned
by the development of energetics, transport and propaganda (television, newspapers,
radio). Let's remind ourselves that the allopathic medicine has always made a leap in
times of war (cold or hot). Once I asked a Buddhist scientist (naturally a psychologist)
what he thought of modern science. He answered that it was not much good, as according to
the survey by the Scandinavian institute SIPRI more than 70% of the current scientific
research is for military purposes. Yes, it is important to know not only what is being
done, but also why it is being done.

Fortunately, the balance of fear in the age of atomic bombs does not
allow war between the superpowers, so that technological progress has so far not lead to
the destruction of mankind, even though the destruction of life on Earth through the
efforts of modern science and technology is perfectly possible and can be carried through
at any time in a matter of hours. Nevertheless, secondary results of technological
progress may lead to the destruction of life just as reliably though perhaps a little more
slowly: atmospheric pollution, pollution of earth and water and also of animal and human
bodies, through industrial waste. Dramatic development of chronic diseases, with human
psychology on a decline, increased aggressively, to a large degree caused also by
allopathy. Ozone holes caused through the influence of freons and other emissions. Sudden
changes in the atmosphere (increased volume of CO2), caused by the burning of oil and
coal. The glasshouse effect. The changes of climate and advancement of deserts. Extremely
fast fall of numbers of animal and plant species. The loss of faith in the future and the
escape to materialistic values (looking "downward" for the primal cause). All
these are clear signs of an advancing catastrophe. It is an obvious proof that the
euphoria of modern science, this materialistic Veda of the twentieth century, will have to
subside, if life on this planet is to continue.

People are beginning to realise that all is not well. Despite of the
destructive forces, the ecological consciousness was born, on the increase is the general
interest of people in spirituality, holistic treatment and particularly in homeopathy.
Homeopathy, which has been established on the world scene for two hundred years, and at
present is fast developing, probably marches (even though many homeopaths and their
patients are not fully conscious of this) at the front of this stream of modern revival.
In front, because of being the most widespread alternative method of treatment, because it
is already used by millions of patients, it fulfils the requirement for wholeness, not
only in the holistic concept of man and his health, the totality of mind and the body, but
also the wholeness of human life and its environment, wholeness of nature and universal
processes, appurtenance in the most general and extensive sense. Homeopathy means total
treatment. And also total responsibility.

Positive Influences of Technological Progress

When emptying the bath tub, why should we get rid of the child with the
bathwater? Like any other phenomenon, technological progress is also two sided. It has a
good and a bad side. The bad one appears to momentarily predominate. However, there are
also positive aspects: transport, communication, television and other media, which make
possible the transmission of vital information, among other information about homeopathy.
There is for instance the computer net Homeonet, facilitating long distance consultations
and instant exchange of information. The advancement of technology in agriculture means
regular and ample nourishment of the population, which undoubtedly is the main cause of
the prolonged average human life in this century. The advancement of the culture of living
has a very important positive influence on the state of health of the populace. The
manufacture of nonchemical products made possible many new homeopathic remedies. Computer
technology has produced many homeopathic diagnostic programmes, which help to correct and
speed up the diagnoses. So we can see that both sides, the forces of destruction and the
forces of organisation, have the same technological means at their disposal. In a
extraordinary way this is accordant with the fundamental principle of homeopathy, to cure
like with the like. The fact remains however, that homeopathy can essentially make do with
the level of technology present at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when
technology was far more merciful to the environment and to peoples' lives.

Scientific Arguments Against and For

It would be appropriate to mention the most characteristic arguments
modern science uses against homeopathy, when it takes notice of it at all. It sees as its
main fault the high dilution of homeopathic remedies. There is the so called Avogard
limit, the dilution of a substance to the power of 10 to minus 23, beyond which the
diluting medium cannot contain any particle of the original substance. The Avogard limit
is identical to the homeopathic potency C 12. Homeopaths nevertheless mostly use much
higher potencies (dilutions). The scientists therefore conclude that homeopathic remedy,
which cannot contain any effective substance, can only act as the so called placebo. The
classical medicine happened to have noticed that the actual psychological effect of
administering a pill (a placebo), which does not contain any medicinal substance, may
cause a certain small and temporary improvement of the patient's condition. Essentially
this is a variation of the biblical "you were cured by your faith". In no case
however can the placebo effect go so far, as regularly curing an acute illness with fever
in one day, or to cure an allergy or diabetes. If the placebo effect were really so
powerful, the previous doses of allopathic remedies should have also had this curing
effect. An overwhelming majority of patients come to the homeopath only after long lasting
unsuccessful treatment by allopathic medication. From the point of view of the placebo
effect, the allopaths should even have an advantage, because they administer the pills
regularly for a long time. A classical homeopath often gives out only a single pill,
followed by months, even years without medication, while the patient's case is still
developing positively.

Another argument against the placebo effect is the treatment of small
babies, who could hardly distinguish one sugary pill from their ordinary food. And exactly
with small babies, thanks to their strong vitality, we experience the most remarkable
success in treatment. Homeopathic remedies are also given to people while they are
unconscious. Even then they act in the normal way, as if they were administered in full
consciousness. There is even a whole branch of veterinary homeopathy. Faith of poultry,
dogs and cats in placebo, is surely a debatable matter. Another fact that opposes the
placebo theory are the results of tests of remedies on healthy people. A certain
homeopathic remedy causes in people, who do not know which remedy they have received, the
same variety of symptoms. Finally, there are a number of scientific studies, where with
the help of the double-blind trial (a standard method of testing any type of remedy), the
effectiveness of homeopathic remedies was proven beyond doubt. For example, in 1983 at the
Pharmaceutical Polytechnic School at Portsmouth, tests on mice were conducted that
validated the analgetical effects of Arnica C 30. Similarly successful were the
double-blind trials conducted at the homeopathic hospital at Glasgow, with potentised
pollen preparations (potency C 30), in treatment of hay fever. The method of double-blind
trial demands however, that nobody, not the person who receives the remedy, nor the person
who administers it, knows whether a placebo or a remedy is being given, and it should also
not be known beforehand who would be given the actual remedy. This does not agree with the
fundamental philosophy of homeopathic treatment. In homeopathy a remedy is not
administered to all, to a particular symptom, but there is a strict individualisation,
with the prescription based on the complex picture of the patient. Double-blind trials
therefore only concern the "recognisable indications" of remedies to a
particular symptom, and depart somewhat from the framework of homeopathic method and do
not belong to the mainstream of homeopathy. Curiously, most allopathic remedies were not
subjected to any double-blind trials and, surprisingly, their effectiveness has not been
at all doubted. The results of a double-blind trial are often unfavourable to well known
allopathic drugs, of which the general public is not very well informed.

There are also statistically orientated clinical studies, concerning the
effectiveness of homeopathic treatment in daily practice. One of these, by the Dutch
practitioner van Berckel was published in 1994 in our health magazine Statim.

On the part of physical science, positive results have emanated from the
trial by French scientists, who have tested water containing the thirteenth centesimal
potency of Silicea through a method of nuclear magnetic resonance. They found out
that water containing the potency had different parameters than water without the
infinitesimal potency and that homeopathic remedy has changed the structure of water. The
results of the trial were published in Journale de Medicine Nucleaire et Biophysique.
Naturally, such a result pleases the homeopath. At the same time it makes him realise how
far the contemporary modern science has gone in its search for the materialistic cause of
all things. Thousands of scientists, physicists, chemists and biologists have been cured
through homeopathy from various ailments. This, for the physical, chemical and biological
science is no proof. Personal testimony of these people and those near them has no value
to science. Science, on its way to the lowest organisational structures above all trusts
the lifeless, the dead. It trusts a metallic hand of a device, a crystal digital scale, a
screen. That, told by a living person about his or her experience, of feelings, is
dubious, because it may have been influenced by the psychology, if not by something
higher.

Very few modern scientists understand that such an attitude after all is
nothing else than a display of their collective psychology.